Longitudinal pain and pain interference in long‐term survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to characterize the prevalence and risk of pain, pain interference, and recurrent pain in adult survivors of childhood cancer in comparison with siblings. METHODS: This study analyzed longitudinal data from survivors (n = 10,012; 48.7% female; median age, 31 years [range, 17-57 years]; median time since diagnosis, 23 years) and siblings (n = 3173) from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Survivors were diagnosed between 1970 and 1986 at 1 of 26 participating sites. Associations between risk factors (demographics, cancer-related factors, and psychological symptoms) and pain, pain interference, and recurrent pain (5 years apart) were assessed with multinomial logistic regression. Path analyses examined cross-sectional associations between risk factors and pain outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of survivors reported moderate to severe pain, 20% reported moderate to extreme pain interference, and 9% reported moderate to severe recurrent pain. Female sex, a sarcoma/bone tumor diagnosis, and severe/life-threatening chronic medical conditions were associated with recurrent pain. Depression and anxiety were associated with increased risk for all pain outcomes. Poor vitality mediated the effects of anxiety on high pain and pain interference (root mean square error of approximation, 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of adult survivors report moderate to severe pain and pain interference more than 20 years after their diagnosis. Increased screening and early intervention for pain interference and recurrent pain are warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".